Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and John McCain (Ariz.) battled on the Senate floor Tuesday over a proposed amendment to the pending defense authorization bill that could allow American citizens who are suspected of terrorism to be denied a civilian trial.

Paul argued the amendment, which is cosponsored by McCain, "puts every single American citizen at risk" and suggested that if the amendment passes, "the terrorists have won."

"Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won," Paul argued, "[D]etaining American citizens without a court trial is not American."

Kennedy understood business and economics. When the economy hit a soft spot, he lowered taxes which spurred business investment and government tax revenues increased. Clinton understood business, he cut capital gains and dividend taxes in half and that spurred business investment causing very low unemployment and increased tax revenues to the point where the government ran a surplus. Neither one of them would have been endorsed by a Castro in their candidacy or the CPUS.

Obama wants to DOUBLE both capital gains and dividend taxes. That is going to put the brakes on hard on this economy and it will REDUCE revenues because it will reduce business activity. Obama doesn't understand economics. It is all some academic theory to him. He comes from the Cloward and Piven school of government finance. His first priority is to burn down the economy so he can "save" it.

yeah people are not thinking of the power in that bill, if it's in the "wrong hands"..........

The problem is who gets to define what "terrorist" is. The traditional meaning of the word is anyone who engages in the "I will make your life a living hell unless you do what I want" mechanism of persuasion ... like the Occupy movement. We have recently narrowed that definition to people who attempt to influence opinion by mass destruction or extreme violence. Trouble is that politicians seem to interpret "terrorist" as "anyone who disagrees with me or threatens my agenda".

yeah people are not thinking of the power in that bill, if it's in the "wrong hands"..........

The problem is who gets to define what "terrorist" is. The traditional meaning of the word is anyone who engages in the "I will make your life a living hell unless you do what I want" mechanism of persuasion ... like the Occupy movement. We have recently narrowed that definition to people who attempt to influence opinion by mass destruction or extreme violence. Trouble is that politicians seem to interpret "terrorist" as "anyone who disagrees with me or threatens my agenda".

From an economics perspective, bank collapse was ultimately brought on by Senate Democrats. While Bush did have a Republican Congress for most of his administration (until 2006 when the House flipped) he didn't have the veto-proof majority that Obama had until 2010. There were several cases starting in 2001, before 9/11 where the administration testified before Congress in an attempt to get them to more closely regulate the GSEs. This was repeated in 2003 and again in 2005. Finally in 2005, McCain drafted legislation but never got enough votes to even try for cloture so it could go for a vote. After 2006 there was no chance.

If I could point to one single problem that resulted in the US mortgage collapse it would be the allowance of giving adjustable rate mortgages to "non-traditional" borrowers. If I could point to the one thing that made it worse, it was a misuse of TARP and the quantitative easing policy of the federal reserve in QE1.

But we also have to put this in a global context. The financial collapse in Europe has nothing to do with US mortgage markets. That collapse is due to plain old financial irresponsibility. If you look at the economies of Europe, the countries that are doing best are the ones did NOT go for the "stimulus" model and instead chose the so-called "austerity" model. The ones that scaled back benefits and the size of government, got their budgets under control, endured a little shrinkage for a period of time, now see their economies expanding at a sustainable rate. Those that chose the "stimulus" model see their problems getting even worse as their debt levels have skyrocketed and the cost of servicing that debt is now through the roof and eating up their tax revenues. France has since their recent elections decided to DECREASE their retirement age to 60. They are going to pay a heavy price for that decision. 60 is too young and looking at European population demographics, they are looking at a shrinking working age population and an increasing pensioner population and this reduction just made that problem even worse. Hollande has made a decision that is going to absolutely destroy the French economy, but that is what Socialists do. There is not a single documented case of socialism improving the well-being of a country in an overall sense. There are many documented cases where throwing off socialism has greatly improved that well-being.

But has the US simply disallowed adjustable rate mortgages for government guaranteed loans, we would not be in the mess we are currently in. Had government purchased those loans when the banks started to collapse, converted them to fixed rate loans, and sold them back on the open market, we wouldn't be in trouble today.

because he was so open?honest?faithful in marriage?his morals?his pacificity?

or did his Baaaston accent just turn you on?

Guess you didn't listen to the interview link. Yeah the women.....the guy did not start two illegal invasions or threaten to Nuke North Vietnam and Cambodia, which is worse in your mind?

[/quote]

do you mean no wars? I had thought he added to what Eisenhower started in Vietnam, substantially. Didn't he (arguably) actually commit us there?Bay of Pigs?Was he not ready to "push the button" in the Cuban missile crisis?

I'm not saying he was not good......I just roll my eyes when so many of you hold him up as some saint. No better, no worse, than many. I'd even agree, probably better on average.

I would say that the fact that he was assassinated is a good indication that he was trying to do something right. Had he been doing something really wrong he would have been impeached, one way or another. Of course 35 years laters he could have also avoided impeachment by asking for the definition of a word.

So the country is going to hell on a roller skate. It is critically important who gets elected. Difficult choice. Perhaps we should take a look at who got us in this mess in the first place. We surely don't want those people in office now do we?

since 1853 (14th President, Franklin Pierce, democrat) there have only been republicans and democrats in the white house.

Box Burner wrote:So the country is going to hell on a roller skate. It is critically important who gets elected. Difficult choice. Perhaps we should take a look at who got us in this mess in the first place. We surely don't want those people in office now do we?

since 1853 (14th President, Franklin Pierce, democrat) there have only been republicans and democrats in the white house.